It's good to hear responses from at least some of the very people who made this decision.
I'm pleased to hear that Mrs. Johnson is indeed donating at least part of her raise. As I mentioned before, it's largely symbolic but demonstrates at least some willingness on Mrs. Johnson's part to be true in spirit. Regarding the comparisons to private companies and private schools. I would ask how many of these corporations of comparable size and private schools are bleeding $30 million deficits and still offering their CEO's huge salaries and raises? Furthermore, this is really a comparison of apples to oranges. Sorry, Audrey and fellow Board members, in my mind you answer to the public and that means there's different standards. That's part of the gig of public service. Regarding the contributions Mrs. Johnson has brought in. This is indeed commendable. However, is Mrs. Johnson the only one that could have brought these contributions in? Regarding the percentage of administration as expenses, I am reminded of those who say things like there's liars and then there's statisticians. I'm not trying to say that anyone is lying or even intentionally misrepresenting themselves, but 4% of an immense budget can be more money than 8% of a smaller school district's budget. Hence, the statistics are truthful, but PERHAPS misleading. In the end, there's still a couple of basic facts, which is what most taxpayers are concerned about: The Superintendent makes an income not enjoyed by more than a precious handful of parents of students that she oversees in the schools. These same parents are going to be the ones that will have to work harder with a continued deficit that allows less for their kids. In the end, it feeds the fuel for pushes such as school vouchers as a means to force public schools to be more competitive. Gary Bowman Ward 1, Precinct 1 On Wed, 19 December 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Gary Bowman writes; > >I realize the value of spending a little now if it saves more later and > the value of quality products (in this case, a quality leader for > Minneapolis Public Schools). However, even with that consideration, I must > confess that I am immensely hard-pressed to justify a $30,000 raise to > $190,000 in my mind. Let's keep in mind of an expected, what is the > amount, $30 million shortfall? How do we say to parents that their > children will have to settle for less when a person who was already making > more than likely 95% of these parents is now getting a $30,000 raise? > > AJ: At our meeting last night, the Board voted to amend the > Superintendent's contract that had been agreed upon last July. The Board > had offered a $15 thousand raise in Nov. of 2000, Dr. Johnson turned it > down. When the Minneapolis Public Schools almost lost Dr. Johnson as > Superintendent last summer, the Board looked at every option available and > contingency plans to operate the district. We decided that the students > and families of this town would be better off with Dr. Johnson at this time > than any other alternative. She is recognized locally and nationally as > one of the top administrators. Incidentally, she has, through her efforts, > brought in over $8 million in private donations for the schools this year > alone. > > (from a recent post that I submitted, I offered the following explanation) > In a recent comparsion done by one of the major TV news channels, a > comparable business the size of MPS pays its CEO over $1 million. Private > schools in the area, such as Blake or Breck, pay their top directors more > than $190,000. and they have far less students, no special education and no > unfunded state or federal mandates. In the most recent audit received from > Deloitte Touche last night, MPS is running very lean on administration, the > district admin costs are at a little over 4% of expenses. Deloitte Touche, > McKinsey Group and EDS are all outside business consultants, 2 of which > have provided analysis of finances for MPS pro bono (for free). All 3 > firms have stated emphatically that the district is running too lean in > this area. Most non-profots run at 8-15%, privates schools in the area at > about 8%. > > >Furthermore, when Minneapolis taxpayers voted YES FOR SCHOOLS, I really > don't think it was the intent of the taxpayers to pay for administrative > pay raises (the article also mentions another $125,000/year for a COO, > adding insult to injury) > > AJ: The money that is raised by the referendum does not pay for > administrative costs. That revenue is put into a separate account which is > called fund 96. It specifically pays for teachers so we can have smaller > class sizes. > > >In conclusion, it's these antics that leave many people with the belief > that money is being misappropiated and tax increases are unjustified. I > would openly challenge Carol Johnson to return her pay raise to either the > district or some school related charity (PTA?) and, of course, remain > Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools. Would this return of $30,000 > to an immense budget be largely symbolic vs. of practical use? Yes, but it > would demonstrate Carol Johnson's desire to run a good school system not > only in letter but in spirit also. > > AJ: Point well taken and it is already so, however this was not reported > by the media in the article yesterday. Dr. Johnson is contributing half > the salary increase, $15,000 a year, to the Minneapolis Public Schools > Foundation, a non-profit organization that raises money privately for such > items as high school reform, Arts in Academics, etc... As to > accountability, there is more information available on the school > district's spending than most governmental entities. Certainly the state > and federal govt. is no where near what is expected or delivered from this > school district. > > Loki Anderson writes: > I have a question about this pay hike. Were annual pay > raises a part of her contract and was the amount > specified in the contract, tied to performance > standards, or was there a COLA? > > The Board is operating under a governance called a modified Carver model, > otherwise known as policy governance. The Board established a set of > prioities called the District Improvment Agenda, which is available thorugh > the school district's web page. It has three Goals: Accelerate academic > achievment for all students, Welcome and engage students. families, and > community in education, implement accountablility systems for providing, > assessing and supporting quality instruction. Under these are several > results and points which the Board considers in making an evaluation. The > full evaluation is a 4 page document which spells out the accomplishments > of the Superintendent and the areas were improvement is needed. I don't > want to overload people's boxes, but I will try to find out during the day > if the evaluation would be available through the web page. > > The district has one of, if not the top, Research, Evaluation and > Assessment departments in the country. Dr. David Heistad is recognized > nationally and has advised states and federal govt. on the topic. He > prepares a district achievement report every year which is also available > through the district. It is on these indicators as well as student and > family surveys, that the Board looks at in evaluation of the > Superintendent. The Board hires one person only, that is the > Superintendent. From there, all day to day operations are the > Superintendent's responsibility. Otherwise, a Board can get mired in > micromanagment, and that truly undermines the Superintendent's role. > > About that $30 million deficit, I must comment on the recently passed ESEA > (elementary and secondary education act) bill. MPS along with hundreds of > nation wide school districts, lobbied to have the Federal Govt. pick up the > cost of Special Ed promised 27 years ago, and make it mandatory. All > school districts, large and small, have to cover the cost of mandates not > funded or underfunded by the federal govt. Here in Mpls. we are paying out > an unreimbursed $28 million in this fiscal year. If the federal govt. > would see fit to fulfill their promise, our deficit would be about $2 > million, quite a difference! > > This bill calls for more testing, Wellstone recently remarked that he > thought the testing was to measure the reform, not to be the reform. Our > state will not receive the full amount for added testing and so there is > another underfunded mandate passed on to the taxpayers at the state and > local level. Title 1 funds, money targeted to poor and at risk children, > only funds about 1/3 of the children it should in Minneapolis. This bill > is slightly better for Minneapolis than the original only because of the > difficult fight put up by Sen. Wellstone and Dayton. Bush's "leave no > child behind" sentiment(a phrase lifted from the 1980's head of children's > defense fund Hilary Rodham Clinton), is, in my opinion, more political > platitudes; sounds cute but this bill is sorely lacking and Minneapolis, as > well as the state, will stand to loose from it. > > Audrey Johnson > 10th ward MPS BOE member > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls --------------------------------------------------- Get your free web based email from Crosswalk.com: http://mail.crosswalk.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
